Our collection of material documenting harassment, doxing and allegations of illegal behavior on the part of a purportedly "MAP" group is now complete. A second article documenting a campaign of false claims by said group is nearing completion, and will be shared here.
Talk:Abel screening: Difference between revisions
m Talk:Abel Screening moved to Talk:Abel screening |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Can someone make this flow better? [[User:Rez|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | Can someone make this flow better? [[User:Rez|Rez (The Administrators - anonym)]] 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
"Further, there was no evidence indicating that the study itself had been rigorously examined (for instance, through the process of peer review) and nothing to show "the significance of a subject viewing slides of children for '''one-third''' as long as [the study subject] viewed slides of adults" -- the "fail" score that Abel derived from the study."[http://masscases.com/cases/app/63/63massappct171.html] | |||
Does this mean that viewing children and adults for equal lengths won't work? [[User:Jillium|Jillium]] 04:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:50, 13 June 2009
Can someone make this flow better? Rez (The Administrators - anonym) 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"Further, there was no evidence indicating that the study itself had been rigorously examined (for instance, through the process of peer review) and nothing to show "the significance of a subject viewing slides of children for one-third as long as [the study subject] viewed slides of adults" -- the "fail" score that Abel derived from the study."[1]
Does this mean that viewing children and adults for equal lengths won't work? Jillium 04:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)